The Star Trek trailer hit the Trek world by storm this week, including the contributors to TrekMovie.com. Anthony, the Editor in Chief, has weighed in with his trailer review (and his 20 minute preview analysis), but today some of the other contributors put in their two cents on the trailer, including some observations from their unique perspectives.

Swiss Psychologist Carl Jung never knew Star Trek. Yet, based on the 20 minutes of footage seen by the press and the trailer, it is obvious that if Jung never heard of Star Trek, the creators of the new movie know Jung. The more we hear about Star Trek 2009, the more evident it is that the characters and narrative are even more mythological than ever before. The theories of Carl Jung and mythologist Joseph Campbell about how archetypes creep into a storyteller through the collective unconscious we all share have never been more applicable to a Star Trek film.

Jung and Campbell, writing separately, yet whose work intertwines, both suggest that there is the monomyth and the hero with a thousand faces. What they mean is that because we all share archetypal definitions (or definitions of perfect or ideal types, for example, mt of us would agree what a perfect mother or father should be like) it is not surprising that narratives and characters from fiction are similar. The story of Superman is much the same story as Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter. Whether created in England or the United States, Russia or Kenya, our heroes are pretty much the same and experience pretty much the same things in all our mythologies.

The new Star Trek film is obviously riffing on mythology, perhaps in a way that Star Trek has never really done before. When people think of science fiction and archetypes, they tend to think of Star Wars (Lucas consulted with Campbell). It isn’t fair to say that Star Trek never expressed archetypes or monomyth themes before now (in fact, many academic essays have been written on the idea). However, as more and more is known about the film, the comparison to ideas of Jung and Campbell are replete, especially when thinking of the character known as James T. Kirk.

The Hero: James T. Kirk For Campbell, the Hero can take two main forms, the citizen hero (sometimes called the compassionate hero, like Superman) or the rogue hero (sometimes called the passionate hero, like Batman). The Pine version of Kirk appears to have elements of both. Like all citizen heroes, we now know that this version of Captain Kirk has a special birth. Kal-El escapes from Krypton or Luke Skywalker is born in unusual circumstances, and while these heroes have a special birth, they live in meager environments. We see the birth of Kirk in the trailer, and we know from media reports that his father dies saving him and many others on the USS Kelvin. A father or mother sacrificing so a child may be born is a common theme of mythology. And, like many citizen heroes, from Luke Skywalker to Harry Potter to Dorothy from Oz, Kirk is raised in Iowa, on a farm.

Kirk also has features of a rogue hero. Rogue heroes usually start off needing redemption, the form of which is usually offered by meeting other hero partners and meeting the challenges of the narrative. Han Solo, for example, is a selfish criminal when we first meet him. Through his interactions with Luke and friends, and through their shared adventures, he redeems himself at the end by helping destroy the Death Star. Yet, Han is brash and cynical in a way Luke is not, and his roguish nature is what is attractive to women and makes him a fan favorite. Rogue heroes are usually characters who enjoy things like hotrods (witness Han’s love affair with the Millennium Falcon, with its miniature dice in the window in Episode IV). It appears that Kirk starts out this way, also. He obviously likes fast cars and motorcycles, gets in trouble with robotic looking law enforcers, and the scene described by the media in the bar with Uhura and her fellow cadets sure sounds like Kirk needs redeeming.

The Hero’s Journey: Kirk and his BoonEvery hero’s journey has a boon. A boon is the treasure, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or the Grail at the end of the crusade. However, boons are often not things, but more ephemeral treasures such as knowledge or courage. Indiana Jones never keeps the item he is seeking (the government gets the Ark, the villagers get the Sankara Stones, the Grail stays where it is, and the aliens leave). That is because Lucas and Spielberg know the item isn’t Indy’s boon. The boon in Raiders of the Lost Ark is Indy learning to respect religion and reestablishing his relationship with Marion. In the Temple of Doom, it is learning that fortune and glory and not as important as family. In The Last Crusade, the boon is restoring the connection to the father. And in the fourth film, it is finding that family is indeed the greatest treasure.

Kirk’s boons are already evident. The first is his command of the Enterprise, something that we have always known is his first, best destiny. The second is his own redemption from individualistic to group leader. He will obviously earn other things along the way, which include friendships and a purpose. He will probably also come to grips with the legacy of his father, as saves others just like the old man.

What is amazing is that just the two minute trailer (and the reports of the 20 minute preview), the mythological themes of Star Trek are already asserting themselves. It will be interesting to see how Jung and Campbell’s ideas are expressed in the entire narrative.

A hero is (re) born

It’s about ‘the millennials’by Matt Wright– Asst. Editor

There is a is a lot of buzz (and fan controversy) about the new trailer, but an important element to bear in mind is: demographics. This trailer aimed to catch the attention of the "millennials", the young adults born in the 1990’s who are now moving into the prime teen and early adult age range. These are the movers and shakers when it comes to pop culture and product consumption. And to them, Star Trek is a relic from the ’80s or, even worse, the long gone 1960s with almost no context.

The successful recent genre "restarts" (for lack of a better term), like Batman, Bond, and even Transformers, were all re-made to be relevant to the 21st century. Batman and James Bond had to reinvent its main character for a new generation. Batman comes from just before World War II and James Bond comes from a post-WWII era, historical contexts most people under 70 know very little about in a tangible way. Re-introducing stories isn’t new; humans have been updating and changing fables, myths, and time tested works of literature for every era.

For the youth of today the 1960s has been reduced to a phrase: "a time of upheaval, and change", without any real grasp of why or how these changes emerged. Star Trek was a Parsonian view of change, order, and progress. This paradigm has little relevance to a teen of today. In the post-modern world we’re cynical about progress while being more reliant on, and connected by, technology then most could have imagined 20+ years ago. Further, teens today don’t really remember before 9/11. They were 11 years old or maybe as old as 13. Sept. 11 was a radical shift in the American social landscape: changing the political climate, the way we communicate, and the liberties we feel we should have.

This is not to say that teens should be pandered to, quite the opposite. Pandering is humoring, and that’s simply a hollow form. It’s more that these new cultural realities must be encompassed to be relevant to the youth who are the key to the film’s mainstream success, and Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman seem to know how to appeal to this generation. I do not envy their task of making the Trek legacy relevant to both the 1960s optimism and the 2000s cynicism.

So am I happy that we have an "iBridge"? not so much. Will it matter if it reinvigorates the franchise I love? Nope. If it works, it works. I’m willing to allow for change. Although I do not want the essence of Trek lost to a "music video sensibility" story, so far this is just a trailer, and on that is clearly aimed at hooking those with the MTV sensibility, and it is far too early to make out what the story will really entail.

From a scientific perspective, it is hard to say much about the new trailer. There are still plenty of unanswered questions regarding how scientifically accurate the movie will be. But just based on what we know so far, my guess is that the movie will be fairly accurate, at least in the realm of science fiction. As far as visuals go, JJ and crew brought aboard Carolyn Porco, the Cassini Imaging Team Leader for NASA’s Cassini Spacecraft currently in orbit around Saturn. With her help, the shots of space, planets, nebulae and so forth should be stunning and realistic.

Going off the trailer, we can look at Abrams’s portrayal of future technologies; things like flying cars (or motorcycles), compact angular buildings, and of course, space ships. What we can see, which again isn’t much considering the devil is in the details when it comes to this stuff, makes it look like the people behind the new movie really want to capture Trek in a more believable and relevant way than ever before. In my opinion the trailer represents the rebirth of a franchise.

If the movie truly is as exciting and action packed as the trailer makes it seem, Star Trek is going to be a highly successful box office draw next Summer.

This Trek should look realer than any before

Mulling over the details by Robert Lyons – Books Editor

Having seen the trailer, both on the big screen and repeatedly on the web, I’ve had a wide array of thoughts about it. My first thoughts were somewhat unflattering; I wasn’t a huge fan of the newly revealed Enterprise, the new bridge, or the new uniforms when I saw them in still-life, but the trailer helped them to grow on me at least marginally. I’m still not sold on the new design ethic, but I am trying to keep an open mind. Some thoughts that have flowed from viewing the trailer:

In many ways, the new Enterprise looks far more massive than feels right, making me think more of the USS Star Empire from the Diane Carey novel "Dreadnought".

Kirk, in the car chase sequence, appears to be old enough to be on Tarsus IV (TOS: The Conscience of the King), but we have already heard that this takes place in Iowa. I’ll be curious to learn more about the car chase, as I sure can’t think of a reason for a canyon in Iowa.

The new transporter effect is growing on me, as is the starship Kelvin. I’m still holding out for now on the Enterprise, but I really like what I have seen of the warp drive effects.

I’m pretty sure that Bruce Greenwood owns Pike.

The Vulcan sequences were exceptionally well done.

Nero’s delivery of the trailer’s final line is flawlessly chilling, taking my mind back to some of Khan’s greatest phrases. And that look on his face when he says "The wait is over" is perfect.

Between the pictures I have seen and the trailer, I think that Karl Urban should have been cast as Gary Mitchell, not Dr. McCoy.

Skydiving fistfights didn’t work for Battlestar Galactica (Razor), or for Quantum of Solace, and I sure hope nobody has tried to try to make them work for Star Trek.

Some of the concerns that the recently released photos from the movie stirred have been quelled, and while I still have a level of concern about the new movie, I am remaining optimistic about it.

After avoiding the trailer spoilers, when it first started playing in my theater and that Corvette roared on the screen, I didn’t even realize it was Trek (which was probably the point). In fact, I thought it was another trailer for a Fast and Furious flick with Vin Diesel and I initially didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. When I realized that a kid was driving and the cop chasing him was on a hover bike and appeared to be a robot — this had me going, "what the hell?" When the kid proudly proclaimed himself to be James Tiberius Kirk, I was at first shocked, then my extreme nerdity took over and my complete attention was on the screen.

What followed on the screen was simply amazing, especially after covering all the casting news it was great seeing these actors bring these legendary characters to life. Based just on this 2-minute trailer, I am fully confident that the actors did fantastic jobs in each of their roles. I was disappointed that we never caught a glimpse of Nimoy in the trailer, but, hey, at least we got to see Rachel Nichols’ Orion babe! How awesome is that? The Enterprise especially looks lovely. I must say that the new design is growing on me fast. Based on the glimpses I’ve seen, Ryan Church is right: he and his team have designed us a fine ship, one which looks to certainly earn the name of Enterprise.

Now, having said all this, I do have some concerns over what I have seen in the trailer. You may not know this (or maybe you do), but in addition to writing for TrekMovie.com, I am also an archivist and administrator at Memory Alpha, an encyclopedia for canon Trek. Needless to say, I am wondering how this movie will affect the current state information at Memory Alpha since, judging by the trailer, the new movie will be toying with established canon quite a bit. There are several shots in the trailer which definitely raises a few canon-related questions. Why is the Enterprise being built in Iowa? How is it that Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov are apparently officers while Kirk is still a cadet? I can’t wait to see the explanations for these apparent contradictions but I don’t look forward to the chaos it will all cause at Memory Alpha.

However, these concerns pale in comparison to how psyched I am about this movie. I didn’t think I could get more excited over it before the trailer was released, but I was wrong; the trailer promises a movie that looks better than anything I could have imagined. I can only hope it follows through on that promise.

This is just the tip of the iceburg for the ripple effects to Memory Alpha

2- Harry
Yeah. Imagine if this film was actually set on the Enterprise and about how Pike took command from April, with Pine as Pike. I imagine it wouldn’t have had the mass appeal and the built in context, but I bet there’d be less canon fights!

Being older than DIRT, I’d rather watch an old Cary Grant movie than anything staring Tom Cruise.

When movies first began, they were written by writers that READ books. Then after Star Wars, movies were written by writers that WATCHED movies.Now films are being made by people that grew up on MTV. Witness Charlies Angels. You’ll think of your own examples yourself, I’m sure.

Notice that scary movies are cheap copies of Sam Raimi’s Dead movies. I’ll never see a “Saw” movie because I saw the originals in the 70’s.

Books dont interest people that like information presented to them in little bites or bytes. Books are static. Three minutes of watching someone shaking her bonbons is dynamic.

Consider that the Horizon was the first Enterprise design. It was rejected. GENE said to Jefferies it must not look like a Flash Gorden or Buck Rogers ship or a current real life rocket. Other than that, he had free reign.

Horizon was just a sketch.

The Enterprise looks like a ship, a real wet navy ship. The Secondary Hull has the lines of a galleon or a wooden frigate. The nacelles look like rockets, but evoke the feel of sails. The saucer feels like a deck. It doesnt look like the real USS Constitution, but it feels like it.

6. MGB- did you spend the 70’s like I did reading and re-reading the Blish books? That’s how I grew up on Star Trek without DVD!

I do believe Hollywood has become very homogenized. I find myself enjoying films I probably shouldn’t just because they are DIFFERENT. Movies that aren’t just following the tropes and formulas of the day- movies like “The Fountain” and “Solaris.” Of course, these movies aren’t money makers. Here’s to hoping the new film maintains some level of literacy and intellectualism while still appealing for popularity.

Never in the history of cinema have so many words been written about a movie yet so far from release.

Well, never say “never.” There’s always the next sequel to consider.

About the “music video mentality”: I hardly think that two minutes’ worth of trailer is sufficient to indict the new movie as just so much MTV glitz. Whatever happened to actually watching the movie before judging it, anyway?

Rather than a music video mentality, I would wonder whether, based on the style of Cloverfield, the new Star Trek might have more of a cinema verite feel to it. If it does, then so be it. It would be something new, wouldn’t it?

… Or perhaps not. Think back to the prologue to “Emissary” (DS9). There was chaos all around; the camera was moving herky-jerkily as Sisko tried to save his dying wife. Finally, by a hair’s breadth, he escaped in an emergency pod. That was cinema verite at its best.

Instead of being reduced to the term of uphavel and change maybe we should use the quote
a time for reckless self indulgencs that cashed in at the first opertunity and now lives the life of the guive me im old mentality
at the expence of our remaining recources that are the future

the 60s are a dead and usless time that contributed nothing but blured memories and whining decadence that apparently we need to be romantic about (puncuation and gramer omited) leave the future alone and let star trek be the income that it has to be to survive

the time star trek was created in took a dump on its future and
all its ideals no longer exhist and never did

150 million is an investment not an ideal acept the future for what it is and leave the past where it belongs

I’m glad our first analyst mentioned mythological archetypes in reference to Trek. I’ve always thought the prime difference between Original Trek, particularly its characters, and any other form that came after, is that Kirk and the rest of the original seven are somewhat like mythological heroes, like Jason and the Argonauts. Whereas, those that followed are written to be more real, and come off as not, and are far less dramatic as a result.
Even their names ring out in a different way, in dramatic staccato. You could seriously deliver a seven punch combo to somebodies face, saying the names of the Original Enterprise crew with each impact of your fist, and not sound like an idiot. On the contrary, the crew from “Enterprise” sounds like this year’s pride parade organizers in comparison.
Even the recent miring of Trek heroes in technical solutions detracts from their status as mythological heroes. There is absolutely nothing heroic about how the crew of Voyager gets themselves out of trouble almost every week. It is usually a question of pressing many buttons in a combination that is considered unorthodox. While Roddenberry aimed for accurate science, he aimed for it as the reason for his crew to be where they are when the adventure takes place, not the sole reason for the adventure. True human conflict, whatever the resolution, requires no techno-babble.

hat rick. your jedi mind tricks don’t work on me, i will still not go see it. the trailer has convinced me that this is for the ipod generation. or ipod 3rd generation. or ipod nano. no, ipod touch. yeah, that’s it. that’s the ticket.
but I’m not buying that ticket. even if Mr. Fandango gives it to me for free.

13-
Amen! Remember the “Best of Trek” books, and fanzines actually printed on paper and delivered in the mail? SFB, and Federation Space, and other weird old games (though I know they still produce SFB). Fan produced reference guides like the Starfleet Medical manual. Those were good times. Being a fan then required effort and dedication. I miss that in a lot of ways, but I sure do like having the internet to talk about Trek on. If only we could mix that old dedication with the web… oh wait- it’s called “Phase II.”

Has anyone thought that the next trailer might just be a bit more toned down and storyline driven? Everyone’s jumping the gun on a movie that’s still months and months away. I’d love to slip a valium into all your morning coffees…

I’m still not convinced. Will this be a good movie worth to watch? Perhaps, but I have to admit Special Effects and action are too less to make me going in a cinema anymore (maybe I’m getting old these days). To target the young people is allways a good strategy, so it seems. But the MTV-generation kiddies don’t care for any franchise. They just want have fun for an eveneging and that’s enough. Star Trek will be staying in their memory until the next action movie come up, maybe Wolverine – and after that, Star Trek will be forgotten and left for us true-fans.

I can understand that Paramount wants a piece of the cake (a big piece of course), but I doubt it will be Star Trek that will delivers it to them. Transformers or Iron Man 2 are the next huge hits next year, IMO. No Star Trek movie ever was a so huge success as the one Paramount is hoping for now (not even TVH and First Contact). This movies costs 150 mil. $ and have to bring in much more than 300 mil. $ to be considered as a success. But Trek has to run against Wolverine next year and many kiddies say THAT guy is much cooler than any Star Trek character. Consider all the other “cool” movies next year: Terminator, Transformers, Iron Man, Harry Potter… who wants to see a Star Trek movie then?

I know a bunch of not-Trekkers out there and many of them had seen the new trailer allready. Some said “cool”, others said “Oh no, not again”. I’ve asked them if they’ll plan to see it and some said “Well, perhaps, perhaps not”, but the most said “Perhaps when it comes out on DVD.” I’m not very optimistic by now. It was brave, but very risky for Paramount to spend 150 mil. $ for that movie. But perhaps a budget around 90 or 100 mil. $ would have been enough to create a fantastic movie.

Will it please the majority of old fans? Possible
WIll it bring in new fans? Possible
Will it a major world-wide mega-blockbuster-sucess? Very unlikley
Will it the doom of Star Trek? I hope not.

So let’s turn Trek into a Video game. Two hours of Explosions, and sex for the Millenials. Trek is at it’s best when about people and ideas. Sad that we need to transform it to cater to the “No attention span” generation.
I hope it bombs.

Who are you to presume what the “MTV-generation” is looking for when they go see a movie? And what the hell is the “MTV-generation” anyway? MTV has been around for 20+ years, so we can all quit stereotyping the younger people. I’m 22, and when my friends and I go to see a movie we go because the movie looks good…not because we’re looking for a fun evening. That’s what the bars are for. I’ve been a Trekkie my entire life, so I’m obviously thrilled with the promise of this movie. I’ve shown this trailer to everybody, from my 5 fraternity roommates to my younger 21 year old sister and her volleyball teammates. Every one of them has agreed that it looks amazing and will go see it with me. Stop ripping the trailer for being action-oriented. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY. The trailer is not meant for us fans but for the non-fans. The action and Uhura taking off her top are meant to garner interest from the guys and Pine’s handsome mug is for the ladies. These factors bring in the non-fans and THEN they get hooked on the story. It’s not that hard to understand.

Why oh why is everyone convinced the Enterprise is being built in Iowa? California has flat places, too, and enough time has elapsed between young Kirk’s Corvette scene and older Kir’s motorcycle scene for him to get from one place to the other.

I’ve been a major Trek fan since the first film in late ’79 (I’m 33 now)

I’m just hoping that is still retains the charm and ideas of the Roddenberry/Coon/Bennett stories. Those three know what Trek is certainly about,

I’m no too much into the visuals as much as long as the story and acting are there. I’m really hoping the writing meets the old vibe of Trek in general.

I think the Trek shows and films lost their ‘touch’ since Roddenberry passed for the most part. There were some great episodes that did get that vibe every now and then, but a lot of it turned into either just another soap opera ala 90210 or just a shoot em up with not much behind it.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually have liked most of Trek for the past 30 years, there have been some duff episodes/movies here and there, but they all have been at least good and watchable. I actually thought that Nemesis was actually pretty good, except for that wedding scene, it was horribly written and executed..it looked too forced and the shabby acting shows it.

#25 – “So let’s turn Trek into a Video game. Two hours of Explosions, and sex for the Millenials. Trek is at it’s best when about people and ideas. Sad that we need to transform it to cater to the “No attention span” generation.”

Sad that you thought this worthy to post. Please, do share with us, point by point, all the scenes you saw of the new movie to make such a statement. Go on please.

This is a fine thread. I love the observations from all the Trekmoviedotcom contributors.
I’m not sure I can add to any of the posts above. I still feel like I’m taking it in. I’ve only watched the trailer about 100 times now, so I may have missed something.

23d Century Bridge littered with 21st Century retail Bar Code Scanners.
This is the sort of thing that bothers me. Lazy and unimaginative.
Fire the set director.
It makes me feel like somehow the person that thought it would look futuristic to have BAR CODE SCANNERS all over the bridge and that we wouldnt know what they were thinks we’re clueless.
Lazy.
Pure lazy.
Its the same thing that made me angry (to a lesser degree) with some of teh decisions that Meyer made in his films but THIS film has a much bigger budget so there is NO excuse.
Lazy and unimaginative unless everybody has to scan their own groceries on the bridge..

I finally went and saw Quantum of Solace (good stuff) tonight, and was fortunate enough to see the Star Trek trailer on screen. Having seen it several times to date, I knew what to look for. The Enterprise, the Kelvin, and Spock Prime’s Time Ship are all stunning. The reverse angle of the Enterprise warping away just fills me with a sense of thrill & power.

I will be able to stomach a few scenes of bratty kid Kirk & Uhura bra antics in exchange for a helping of majestic views of the Enterprise in movement. Also, the prospect of Spock’s upbringing is appealing, and I believe there is potential for substance there — perhaps more so than for Kirk’s upbringing. (This Boy’s Life is a great movie, but I don’t want to spend a lot of time on that period in Kirk’s life as a boy).

25 – What’s interesting to me is that every generation for the last three quarters of a century has felt the need to condemn the one below it as having ‘no attention span’. Which suggests it isn’t, and never has been, true.

Plus ca change?

I have to say, this site does a good job of sucking all the excitement and life out of that trailer, I’m surprised Bob Orci can bear to look at this board at times. He must have the thickest skin of any writer ever. More power to him.

#26 – Thank you for that. It’s always good to have a reminder that I’m not the only one born in the 80s and the 90s who are Trek fans.

The more I hang around TrekMovie, the more I’m convinced that there will be a whole bunch of fans who will show up on May 8th next year just to prove to themselves that JJ Abrams’ Star Trek was the final nail in the coffin (and then they’ll come online to go “I told you so!”).

And for this bunch of “fans”, I thank you. Your continued interest in the downfall of this movie will hopefully push it to the #1 spot for many many weeks. Why? Because the more some people want it to fail, the more it will spur others to make it succeed.

I must admit , I have found the five editorials exhilirating and thought provoking . So these critical reviews , that one thinks about , or looks and searches for (of course its not always possible) , and it should be said , we had always considerably hoped , that this scifi series could have evoked an intellectual response , and that it is very much an interesting contact discussion ?!! Yes , very enjoyable !!

Ok, I was a bit exaggerating with the MTV-Generation. It would have been better to name that word millenials (it was very unwise to name it MTV-Gen. I have to admit). I appologize if you feel offended by my comments. It was not meant against you or your sister’s volleyball-team. How younger people see the trailer: Well, different locations, different opionions I presume. My comment was not meant against the millienials, only general concerns about the younger generations taste of movies or how they think about them.

In the age between 13 to 17 a movie has to rock. Story, the grade of acting or logic is not so important (A feel for that grows only with the years). So, it is meaningless if the movie is called Star Trek, Transformers or Wolverine, it has to be fun and it has to be entertaining. I know that, because I know many, many younger adults and teenagers. For example: Everyone I know (in the range between 13 and 20) likes the new Bond. It was a very good movie, superb acting, action without end – But the day after, QOS was forgotten and the younglings looking forward for the next possible great movie. No one was mad a Bond-fan because of QoS. No one plans to watch the older Bonds because of QoS. The same might happen with Star Trek too. They’ll see it, they’ll like it and they’ll forget it the day after. No one will watch TOS, TNG, DSN, VOY or even one of the older movies because of Star Trek 2009.

Nothing against action or entertainment, but for me a good movie needs much more than that. And I will not stop to speak against the trailer, not because it’s action-oriented, but for it’s lack of show something of the story or at least something interesting. I don’t like this kind of trailers. Point.

I doubt Star Trek can cross the 450 mil. $ to be considered as a financial success by Paramount. But we will see.

I may be atypical among 1980’s-born Trek fans, but I find the discussion here interesting. So, I shall offer my perspective.

Watching TOS, the point that was of the most important to me was the writing and the ideas conveyed in it. In it, like in TNG, the very best episodes were hour-long fables; they would offer a valid and universal lesson, compellingly conveying it by way of a set of characters to whom one could relate. (DS9 did that occasionally, but Voyager and Enterprise were pretty lacking in that department.)

That is: to me, the very best of Trek told us something about ourselves and the world we live in — generally in very allegorical terms. And I, for one, didn’t need outstanding special effects or great suspense to accomplish that.

Likewise, for me the coming film is not so much about getting the characters just right, or building the Enterprise in the right place, or sorting out the timeline so that Kirk doesn’t meet Pike, or whether the antimatter reaction formula is just right… or even just how many women Kirk gets into bed (individually or simultaneously). And it certainly isn’t about seeing the mind-blowing special effects. (If I ever want to enjoy a gorgeous view of Enterprise 1701, I call up the famous Kirk fly-in from STTMP.)

In short, I don’t care about all that surface crap.

What do I care about? The storytelling. Do these characters, to whom I have a genuine attachment, take me on a journey that makes for a bit of introspection? All the movies — even the lousy ones — did that. And the first two series did it on a regular basis. (DS9’s most glorious moments, for me, were when it captured that too.)

So, we’ll see. I am very apprehensive and fear that the movie will lack that critical feature… but there is enough brainpower in this that I could very well be pleasantly surprised.

In six months, I’ll know if the new Star Trek is still MY Star Trek. Maybe it is, and so this may be an exciting beginning. And if not? Then, as holo-Archer said for our benefit during the last Trek outing on any screen: ‘Here’s to the next generation.’

Spock, in a different context, said it for me: ‘I am understandably curious.’

if this movie is going to the road of “changing the timeline” (which of course will erase TNG, DS9 and VYG) and intends to create a new opportunity for a whole new trek (even to a new series it’s good cos i think trek belongs to tv) it will be bitter but i am not so sure that i’ll cry a lot for that. all in all, classic trek and its spinoffs will be there always.
and again, if this is the case, original spock changing the timeline seems quite appropriate at one point.

I’m not sure why everything thinks Batman and Bond have been re-invented for the kids. I’m not sure the reasoning, but it was because of failure. Brosnan’s last lackluster Bond film was the highest grossing Bond of all time, until Casino Royal. It didn’t need an re-tooling, but they chose that path and it served them well…well, at least up until Quantam of Solace, where they took the “grounded in reality” Bond too far and there is already a 59% drop in attendance in Bond’s second week. I think pople like Craig, but they also like Bond movies, and when a Bond movie looks and feels like every other action movie something is wrong.

And the same goes with the Batman movies. Sure, some weren’t very good, but they were hardly “Bombs” at the box office. They changed things, including the lead character it seems, almost every film…some worked, some failed horribly. But it all brought in money. Batman Begins signaled a more grounded approach that some liked, while others missed the more escapist entertainment of the previous films.

One thing I am sure of, in this dark times or recession, banks failing, high unemployment, the economy crumbling before us, retirement funds getting wiped out right and left….the optimism of Trek’s future and the sheer fun escapism is what we need. Reality is fine, and I’m glad JJ is keeping it real, but don’t get too real JJ. We truly do enjoy escaping reality once in a while, especially in times like this.

I have followed the development of Star Trek since the Movie was announced in September of 2006 and was hooked once I got a look at the original Teaser Poster which clearly indicated that this was going to be a TOS era Movie!

Each step along the way has made me more and more excited. From the release of each Teaser Poster to the Teaser Trailer (released with Cloverfield) showing the Enterprise being built. There was a hitch of course with Star Trek being moved back to May of 2009 (forcing us to wait longer than JJ and the gang had anticpated for the full length Trailer) however the thing it made me realise was that Paramunt were taking Star Trek seriously again and believed that this Movie could be a true Summer Blockbuster!

As a Star Trek fan I think the Trailer looks AWESOME and can’t wait until May 2009! The thing Trekkies need to realise is that the trailer is not just for us but is intended to entice non-Trekkies to see a Star Trek Movie. So don’t panic!! This is only the beginning of the marketing campaign and things are only going to get more exciting from here!

The most important thing is that Star Trek is alive and well and that is good news for everyone!!!

This is great! Well done to the writers and for the talented team trekmovie.com seems to have.

What I think is genius about what has happened so far is that the Abrams’ & Co., whether by accident of design, have given us just enough new Trek to have us salivating, lusting, debating and fuming for the six months we have until the picture premieres. (not to mention the booster shot we could get should there be a trailer 3!)

I’m glad that Mr. Trotter mentioned the complexities that await Memory Alpha for that was something I wondered about after the trailer came out last week. There’s potentially a lot of revision to do, or a lot of side bars to take in thousands of articles. However, I’m confident that the new team has considered what has happened (even though it hasn’t happened as of the time period of this film, save events in Enterprise) in Trek history as they prepared this film and I’m also confident that they will show us how everything in the new film is plausible and still within the all mighty canon we Trek fans cling to. It’s fine balance between financial success and trek fan approval. They’ve got it worked out and I think on May 9 after all of us have seen the film (except for some super-hard care fans) we’ll all be satisfied, maybe not 100%, but enough to begin the countdown for the next Star Trek film, which I’m sure they’ve got a few story ideas for (whether they admit to it or not).

Tarsus IV? Cmon, if this is a timeline altering story, and we know George Kirk dies on the Kelvin, this completely makes sense that he wouldnt go to Tarsus, as it was a decision made by George Kirk and his wife.

The “canyon” looks more like a strip mine or rock quarry than a canyon. Everything about this movie is growing on me. I will judge it on its own and not against TOS. JJ could not redo the TOS Enterprise. To make a strong movie, he could not do everythng 100% as it was done in 1967. This movie looks like it will be fun to watch and very exciting.

Thoughts…… I have some concerns about this effort. Though the images look like a great movie for sure. I am concerned about how established facts are/have been manipulated. If this turns out to be a time-travel and now all of history has been changed and that is how we explain ourselves….I am extremely disappointed. What a crap out that will be.
Some of my problems include the absence of Shatner as Kirk….
Yes, I know the character was killed off in Generations, but how easily could that have been resolved? “Shatner -Kirk” is forever residing in the Nexus and can be retrieved anytime – Too Easy! OR, since O&K claim to have used some of the novels as inspiration for the movie, why not the ones written by Shatner himself? I think they just did not want Shatner involved and they have used Generations as their justification. I think O&K are Nimoy groupies! (Nothing wrong with that, but to me this is kinda like those J. Lennon groupies who gave no respect to McCartney….)
Also, I am concerned about having the entire crew together at such an early point. Kirk & Chekov should not be at the academy at the same time…..Unless, Chekov is in some preparatory program as a “High Schooler”, and Kirk has returned from his duty on the Faragut for his “Command Course” prior to assuming command of the “E”.
I fear my statement from above is going to be true. Nero’s time travel is going to alter the past in order to explain away these differences. To me, that is cheap story telling. I am excited to see the movie though and will wait until then to pass judgment. One more thing…….I hope there is no pointless sexual crap in the movie, though I already expect it. I would love to take my kids to see the movie, but probably won’t until I know what happens. The “Masturbation” scene in Transformers comes to mind here. Completely irrelevant to the plot, simply inserted to make teenagers giggle and children to ask – “Daddy, what’s masturbation?” Why, why, why put a scene like that in a movie based on a child’s cartoon?
CSM

51 – Agreed. “Casino Royal” served many purposes – it got the idea of Bond himself back to his roots more than anything. It retained much more of the original plot elements of the novel than perhaps any other movie. Sure, some of it had to be upgraded – the Cold War has, after all, ended. But by stripping away a lot of the non-essential elements and in a sense destroying the village to save it (although I love Jon Cleese, Q was never intended to be comic relief at that level), it allowed the series to escape from the almost self-parody that it had, in some respect, become. One of the reasons the early Bond films worked with CONTEMPORARY audiences is because there was an element of credibility there and “Casino Royal” restored the feeling that “OK – I can believe something like this might happen”. Jaws in space – no. Le Chiffre and his seatless chair – oh yeah.

As to what this bodes for “Star Trek” – well, TOS powerfully drew the CONTEMPORARY viewer into its vision of a BELIEVABLE future. As a young person watching that show, I was drawn into a future world that seemed distinctly possible at the time it was created. My sincere hope is that Abrams et all can accomplish the same thing without pandering to the short attention span crowd that seems overly preoccupied with the biff, bang, boom factor.

And a lesson on sequels should also be taken from QOS by the new ST team as well. QOS is a wonderful action movie, but it is NOT a Bond movie. The villain, such as he is, is possessed of a distinct absence of menace, the “threat” is hardly planetary in nature (companies privatizing the world’s water supply – hell THAT is happening right now), and Craig, while a great action hero, has been given a Bond that is nearly a cipher – no élan, no joie de vivre. Point being – the series is once again on the verge of losing its way. This should serve as a cautionary note for the new ST team as well.

Unless its true and every succeeding generation actually has a shorter and shorter attention span than the one before it — that would also explain why every generation says it about the one behind it — because its true, not because its not true.

30 – gettin’ back to where the Enterprise was built. From what I have read, the folks who say the ship is being built in Iowa are commenting on the trailer, they are not folks involved in the movie’s production. In the Empire article where JJ gives scene-by-scene descriptions, he does not mention where the ship is being built. http://www.empireonline.com/features/jj-abrams-talks-star-trek-trailer/6.asp It is possible that there is an article somewhere where he says “The Enterprise was built in Iowa,” but I haven’t seen it. It seems to me that people are making an unwarranted assumption that because young Kirk was in Iowa and the immediate next scene of a flat place has Kirk in it, it must be Iowa. California has a lot of flat empty places, too.

What I do wonder about is, given that the primary hull supposedly could detach from the secondary hull, why are they building the whole thing at the same time instead of separately and then mating the pieces. From an engineering point of view, that would seem to make more sense to build the 2 hulls separately. But not cinematically, granted.

OK- visually to me it seems the “canyon” in Iowa is the future construction site of the Enterprise. This, just for clarification’s sake means the road 24 year old Kirk is biking down is the road young Kirk drives the Vette down, in an act of dramatic parallelism. So why do you need to dig a huge quarry to build a Starship?

Is it possible they are using replicator tech to make certain larger pieces? Realizing we don’t really see replicators until TNG, they are hinted at in ENT, and may exist able to build larger, simple structures like a metal beam, but not more complex things like chocolate mousse. The matter to feed the replicators has to come from somewhere, so you dig up an area to make your construction gantry, and use the collected soil as a matter source. This would also have the effect dramatically of the Enterprise herself literally being “born” of Iowa like Kirk; some more dramatic parallelism.

I think people are making a huge unwarranted leap with this whole Iowa thing. There is no sign saying “Enterprise Construction Site: Iowa” or “Welcome to Iowa” “This is the same setting as the previous scene”. It’s a trailer. They are jumping the setting around frantically. Asking for continuity in a trailer is suicide.

I just googled John Tenuto and saw that he teaches a course called “That ’70s Class” — as a fellow academic, I’d love to hear more about that. Great course name, but what does it cover? How much of Trek in the 1970s makes it into a course like htat?

The metal needed to construct a starship (what is it, canonistas, duranium…? I mean, can you even weld duranium? *sigh*) has to come from somewhere. Presumably it must be mined from whatever the local bedrock is in Iowa (or Cali !!!!), hence a big old hole for Jimmy Bennett to drive into.

I’ve been feeling that this 2 minute plus trailer is being way over analyzed and now I know it after this article. How all of these conclusions are being made based on a mere glimpse is beyond me(saying that Karl Urban would be a better Gary Mitchell for example. How many seconds was he in the trailer?) So let’s give the nitpicking a rest. Talk about it sure as I sure am but things like this article don’t have anything to offer.

@66 – That’s probably the best way to start turning folks off. Admittedly, I’d also like to see how religions and worship survive into the 23rd Century – but I also think there are a lot of folks for whom that would be a turn-off. Personally, I think we ought to leave that alone.

Besides, one would hope that the worship of God (or whatever you want to call the Supreme Being) would transcend religions and become more personal and honest than being told by someone else how to worship. I can read the Bible just fine by myself, thank you, and I don’t need a preacher telling me how I should interpret the Word of God.

Disclaimer: that’s my opinion only, don’t feel like you have to flame me if you don’t agree.

“Even their names ring out in a different way, in dramatic staccato. You could seriously deliver a seven punch combo to somebodies face, saying the names of the Original Enterprise crew with each impact of your fist, and not sound like an idiot. On the contrary, the crew from “Enterprise” sounds like this year’s pride parade organizers in comparison.”

I dunno. Tucker and Phlox do have that classic “k” sound.

There’s a whole academic analysis of the meaning of the word “kirk” (church) as relates to Star Trek. “Star Trek” — again with the “k” sound? This was in the days when a tak(k)ing a (k)course in Trek(k) at (k)college was (k)cool.

Brother, I know EXACTLY what you mean. You could NEVER walk away from a movie with what you get out of a book, and how a picture is filmed in terms of writing and cinematography is directly reflected by whether or not the people involved read a lot as kids, or watched a lot of TV and played video games. You are so on the mark.

A good example is going to be The Watchmen. While I’m sure Zack Snyder is going to do his best to bring us an epic picture, he simply cannot translate everything form book to film accurately. Example, the entire ending has been changed (I won’t give spoilers) and all the costumes in the movie look like rejected Batman-80’s-plastic-nipple-costumes (those of you who have seen the Val Kilmer and George Clooney costumes know exactly what I’m talking about). While attempting to make a “real world” movie where heroes don’t actually have powers (except Dr. Manhattan) and give it a real-world setting, he went and made all the characters involved look like the toys he probably played with growing up.

I have no idea what kind of childhoods Abrams, Kurtzman, or Orci had, whether they read, loved Sci-Fi growing up, or watched MTV and played Colecovision all day while their mothers yelled at them to go outside and get some sun. Whatever the case may be, I am hoping (praying) for a decent Science-Fiction film, and then a good Star Trek film, because I don’t put all my eggs in one basket. If I get both, terrific, however even understanding that in order to appeal to the widest demographic changes and updates need to be made, I’m still skeptical. I’ll go see it in the theater despite earlier threats to download it due to the trailer looking better than I had originally anticipated, and the fact that Anthony so far has given me reason to think it won’t be as bad as I’m afraid it might. I have no problems with a new and improved Star Trek…

I have a problem with changing things simply to be the guy that changed them.

66. Agreed. While any religious stuff shouldn’t be overplayed, we saw the Enterprise had a chapel in TOS, so presumably religions will survive. It wasn’t until the 80s and Gene Roddenberry’s revisionist approach to the past the he created a human society that had outlawed religion.

As for this ‘MTV Generation’ rubbish, that’s just journalistic cliche. MTV, frankly is old hat now! The new trailer is a good slick glimpse at a movie that’s being sold as an exciting adventure, while not ruining the plot for the majority of us.

What is different about it is that it has a modern-day sensibility, which is great since Trek got stuck in a 1980s production timewarp years ago.

Hat Rick (75) Maybe he’s using an environmentally-friendly fuel. Just because it’s a classic car, doesn’t mean it has a classic engine! Maybe vehicles still use ‘gas’ of some sort in the 23rd century. We’ve never really seen much of civilians in Star Trek and almost nothing of people outside of Federation employment, so who knows what your average Joe gets up to.

We know there are still everyday jobs in existence such as cleaners (STII:TWOK) in Kirk’s era, for example. There must be lots of ordinary people who aren’t remarkable in the Trek universe, who live their lives on Earth, perhaps working in shops or bars and restaurants for an average wage and for whom a trip to Alpha Centauri might be too expensive!

About the “Iowa Issue.”
The Federation has transporter technology. Kirk could have a bar fight in Iowa and he (and, presumably, his bike) could be in San Fran moments later. All depends on how common it is to commute via beaming.

“Bless me, Doctor, what beams you into this neck of the woods?” — J. T. Kirk, ST II

As a couple other people already pointed out, it’s a quarry in Iowa, not a huge natural canyon. The proof comes when Kirk busts through the gates a couple seconds in. The sign on the right reads “Danger – Open Quarry Ahead”.

And for those who want proof of this, the sign next to the gate that Kirk crashes reads: “DANGER OPEN QUARRY AHEAD”

As for a general comment on the trailer…it’s just a trailer, and trailers are heavily edited. There is no way someone can discern the plot or chronology of events from this trailer. However, some of the “look” of the film has been revealed through this trailer, and I think its “look” is good so far.

Albeit, I could have done without the trite-looking “13 year old rebel in a vette” scene. Hopefully that scene will have more meaning in the context of the film other than to simply show young Kirk was a “kewl rebel”. Movie fans deserve more than that.

#62-If you look closely at the sign at the shipyard where the Enterprise is being readied to be put together…it says Iowa, or at least IA, if I recall. Abbreviation for Iowa is IA. I was thinking Orci confirmed that shot was in Iowa, also.

#85: They would need to change more than the casting director’s decisions. Pine is too young to play Pike in the (presumed) time frame that we see Pike, and Mitchell is most likely not a part of this story at all.

They would need to change a lot of this film’s story to include Mitchell and a 30-ish Pike.

I am all for re-introducing Star Trek to keep the franchise going. Here’s what I’ve been hoping for:

-Will it ever be shown in the grand light I have always imagined it? Even in the previous movies, Trek always had a feel of inferiority. It was never shown on a grand scope, an epic scale. TWOK was the best, because IMHO, they had a serious tone to the movie. The movie took themselves seriously, even though it had humor. I am glad it appears JJ Abrams has taken this grand approach with the new movie.

-The question for this movie for me will be, is it a serious movie with humor or a humorous movie with some serious parts to it? I am really hoping for the serious movie with some humor. Showing Star Trek as it should be, a great interplanetary peacekeeping/space exploration force with diverse professionals that have high character and ethics put in highly dangerous situations. Star Trek has always had humor, some of the best. What made the McCoy/Spock humor work so well, is that you have these two highly intelligent professionals and their bickering back and forth like school girls. It was hilarious. Had Spock and McCoy been protrayed as a quirky alien and incompetant medicine doctor, the exchange wouldn’t have been as funny. I am disappointed in that it appears, this movie is going to have a very slapstick quality to it. (Kirk’s big hands, McCoy not being able to cure Kirk’s disease, Scotty might be more comedy than the competant professional).

So in some ways I am very delighted with the scope and scale and the sense of “realness/Quality”. In others I am worried but not stressing until I see the movie in it’s entirety. I am keeping an open mind.

On the memory alpha issue, I think this movie is going to show little regard for cannon, despite what JJ has said. The fact that it involves time travel even further pushes it out of the normal Trek universe. Hopefully it will be regarded as something like an alternate timeline. I know JJ wouldnt go for that, but when you decide to do what ever you want with a franchise such as Star Trek, one with fans that are as picky as we are, well there’s going to be back lash, no getting around that. I think when it comes out and its time for memory-alpha to take a look into incorporating it into their database, theyre probably going to have to make a different section for it. I dont know how many of you go to that site, but the attention they pay to cannon and detail is amazing and I dont think this movie will fit. That said, Im not saying this is going to be a bad movie or a movie that’s not at all Star Trek, Im just saying that I think JJ said to hell with cannon, but we’ve known that since the first trailer of the big E being built on Earth.

“It makes me feel like somehow the person that thought it would look futuristic to have BAR CODE SCANNERS all over the bridge and that we wouldnt know what they were thinks we’re clueless.”

And a salt and pepper shaker medical instrument is dumb too I suppose.

“Lazy. Pure lazy.”

Yeah. Right.

“Its the same thing that made me angry (to a lesser degree) with some of teh decisions that Meyer made in his films but THIS film has a much bigger budget so there is NO excuse.”

Congratulations. You have won the Moron of the Year award. Maybe Moron of the Decade. Literally, you are the dumbest person I have ever read on this website. You are saying these people are lazy and unimaginative when they are the ones bringing original Trek to the big screen and waking it from its coma. These “lazy” people have been putting in untold hours of work and I’m sure they aren’t getting a lot of sleep. Yeah, Nick Meyer made some awful mistakes and just ruined Wrath of Khan. WHAT A DUMB THING TO SAY. You are a DISGRACEFUL TREK “FAN” (I use the term loosely). YOU WOULDN’T KNOW A GREAT PIECE OF FILMMAKING IF IT CAME UP AND BIT YOUR BACKSIDE. You’re angry??!? You make me very, VERY angry with your ridiculous attitude and lack of common sense.

“You may not know this (or maybe you do), but in addition to writing for TrekMovie.com, I am also an archivist and administrator at Memory Alpha, an encyclopedia for canon Trek. Needless to say, I am wondering how this movie will affect the current state information at Memory Alpha since, judging by the trailer, the new movie will be toying with established canon quite a bit.” ————–

I have a simple solution for this conundrum. In my mind, this movie is not really connected to the original “Star Trek”. Therefore, the events shown in this movie should have no bearing on the history of the original series ( simply having Chekov, and Uhura there at the beginning of Kirk’s command of the ship violates established series canon to me… and don’t even get me started on the radical re-design of the ‘Uber-Enterprise’). I would liken this to the way the Nu “Battlestar Galactica” relates to the old; the names and some familiar ships are there, but that’s where the similarities end.

This movie should be labeled as” based on Star Trek”, and although I will be interested in seeing how much canon is in there, to me it will not be connected to the original in any way. This is a new version of the tale of the Enterprise and her crew , and I will simply try to enjoy it for what it is, rather than what it is not.

Perhaps a new section of the Memory Alpha website should be started, dealing only with the new “Star Trek” universe as portrayed in the film, rather trying to shoehorn the movie events into the original canon/fanon.

I’m not saying it hasn’t been done before. That has been the problem with Star Trek for me. The spectrum of what it was varied greatly. IMO I preferred the serious tone episodes/movies:

Balance of Terror
Naked Time
City on the Edge of Forever
Where No Man Has Gone Before
Arena
The Cage
Bread and Circuses
Operation: Annihilate
The Enterprise Incident
STII:TWOK

Even William Shatner came out a few months ago and stated he thought Star Trek worked better when it had a serious tone to it, saying (I’m paraphrasing) what they (the crew) was doing was serious business (rescuing worlds, fighting off invaders, curing diseases).

#2: Harry I believe you are a Leafs fan, therefore being a hockey fan you may also appreciate that in that same pic you describe, Urban as McCoy looks just like Patrick Roy doesn’t he? I didn’t want to mention it because it’s irrelevant but since you opened the door… Apologies for being off-topic and to all of you who are not hockey fans.

93
“…I am only saying [this] because I care – there’s a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing. ” — Chris Knight, Real Genius

Hmm maybe the iBridge that we’ve seen is greebled up because of the changed timeline. So they throw in some extra stick-on lights, hostess tables and bar scanners but in the end, when the timeline is retored, those elements will be gone. Because without that stuff, the iBridge looks good.

I for one, am very happy that Bruce Greenwood is playing Pike. He already conveys a certain gravitas as a starship Captain. Unlike how the previous Captains in the movies were portrayed as incompetant buffoons. I think Bruce Greenwood’s serious portayal of Pike, along with the serious portrayals of planet Vulcan, are very entertaining and very un-GalaxyQuest-esque.

The only problems I had with the trailer were: the brief appearance of Simon Pegg (until I realized who he was, I assumed he was a “bad guy” in the film, not Scotty. I don’t understand making that character provide the “comic relief”. Scotty always struck me as being very straightforward (and humorless). And…I don’t care for the new transporter effect at all. It looks like a little special effects tornado. The TOS effect was best because it effectively conveyed the matter into energy (and back again) technology.

Twentieth-century fire extinguishers. Blue eyes or brown eyes. The shape of the new Enterprise is not a pixel-for-pixel copy of the original. Dear god, what are we going to do about the bar code scanner thingies? On and on blah blah blah

Anyone who expects perfection in filmmaking is delusional.

Spend less time dissecting and complaining and more time enjoying the good stuff and maybe you’ll be a happier person for it.

Here is an Idea I came up with over the weekend. What if ‘We’ petitioned NBC or one of the TV Networks to show STAR TREK-Remastered at 10am Saturday Mornings…I think it would be a Win-Win..It would be a great way to expose our show to the kiddies–it would be a good timslot for us die hards to see it–as opposed to 2am, in some markets..and it would be a Great Cross Promotion for the New Movie!! Anyone agree? Thoughts?

86 and 88, my OCD is acting up, and I am having a hard time putting the California/Iowa thing to rest. I enlarged the still of the Enterprise under constuction from the trailer, and that is not an IA on the “Authorized Personnel Only” sign; not sure what it is, maybe a paint blotch followed by the Enterprise swoosh. I did not see the Riverside Dockyards sign Anthony referenced in his review of the JJ Abrams Traveling Show; I wonder if it definitely said Iowa (there are Riversides in both CA and IA). I would love to find the Orci quote about where it was being built, but could not find it. -sigh-

It’s hard to imagine the Enterprise being built in Iowa. They don’t have a history of shipbuilding. Guess I need to find something else to fret over.

I am also worried what other news outlets are saying. Their words not mine from Comingsoon.net and MSN Entertainment both had these concerns after watching the four scenes:

-Kirk’s big hands (over the top)
-Scotty (too comedic, not believable as Scotty)
-McCoy (struggling to cure Kirk of the virus he gave him, a little too comedic. Even though Urban is spot on as McCoy, this scene was very un-McCoy like)
-Quinto as Spock (very disappointing, he is not Spock)
-Pine as Kirk (he is not Kirk, but it doesn’t matter to the movie, his portrayal is serviceable)

Again, their concerns, from Non-Trekkers writing to a younger audience. I thought it was very interesting.

Anybody notice that Spock’s skin tone is exactly the same as Kirk’s when standing side-by-side?

Looks like Abrams chickened out and stopped Spock’s alien transformation at the ears to make him more marketable. I guess he no longer has green copper-based blood. Looks like McCoy has just lost a lot of fodder for his insult mill.

I just noticed this after viewing a re-mastered episode where Spock’s green make-up really stands out against the “pink-skins”. Since the trailer is HD, any difference in Spok’s skin tone should be equally apparent, especially in shots with humans. Instead, many of Spok’s shots give him clearly rosey-red highlights. Very disappointing Abrams would do this. At a bare minimum Spock should be paler than the other actors.

The fact is, the use of commercially available barcode scanners DOES smack of laziness, especially in view of their budget. With the methods available today to quickly produce a 3D prototype right off the monitor, the set designers instead take THAT option? Give me a break.

I know many people in the prop business, some of which have worked on Trek and who are laughing at the use of those scanners.

Oh, by the way, what about Number One? Is she even in the movie? Have I missed some information here?
I know, with all the alternate history involved (sigh) she needn’t be in the movie. But I was really looking forward to seeing her again.

I just decided that I hate TOS now. I read that Matt Jeffries and his assistants took coffee cup lids and styrofoam pieces from a garbage dumpster and stuck them on the walls inside the ship. Talk about lazy and unimaginative.

a) 2251 Christopher Pike transfers from command of the USS Yorktown (NCC-1704) to command of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701

b)Had to be over 31 to even be captain as Kirk was the youngest captain in history at 31, Looks 35-40 in “The Cage” so would be 43-48 or older in 2262
– Greenwood looking older than Hunter is Fine (Greenwood is 52)

c)would still be Captain of ENT till: 2264

James T Kirk:

a) Born 2233

b) 13 when living on Tarsus IV – develops hatred for father- (Novelisation).

c) 17 when back on Earth

d) 2250 Loses mother and father, enters Starfleet Academy after being sponsored by Captain Robert April and Admiral R. Mallory (Novelisation)

l) 2263 The USS Lydia Sutherland, under the command of Captain James T. Kirk, is destroyed during a contact mission to Ghioghe.- (Novelisation)

m) 2264 aged 31 promoted to Captain (Rest is History)- Only his brother Sam, Sams wife and children were present to see him off (Where were his parents??- Dead)

Spock:

a) Born 2232 or 2230- (novelisation)

b) 2249 Spock joins Starfleet aged 17 (Causes rift with father)

c) 2251 graduates from Starfleet Academy with the rank of Ensign. He is posted as assistant science officer on a space cutter.- (Novelisation)

d) 2253 At the recommendation of Robert April Captain Christopher Pike recruits the young cadet Spock to replace his science officer, who had come down with Virillian
toxic fever, on the USS Enterprise. Spock accepts the position becoming an acting ensign, begins his 11 years with Pike- (Novelisation/TOS)

e) 2261 visits Earth and meets Leila Kalomi a love interest

f) 2262 Nero incident (Spent 9 years with Pike on Ent already and is 30 Earth Years) [Quinto is 31]

g) 2264 Ends 11 years with Pike as Pike is promoted and joins now best friend James T Kirk (Rest is History)

McCoy:

a) Born 2227

b) 2244 enters college at the University of Mississippi.- (Novelisation)

c) Mid 2240s in University meets Dax (aged 18)

d) Not canon but logically he would have his medical degree by 2253 aged 26 (in that time he has done wonderous medical proceedures- probably meets Kirk and Spock in academy)

f) 2266 graduates from Starfleet Academy and is reassigned to the USS Enterprise.- (Novelisation)

g) 2267 assigned as navigator aged 22 (was on and off the Enterprise, knew Kahhnnnn!!, did not know Harry Mudd though)

The film being set in 2262 fits in very nicely with canon IMO, the crew are the right age and all have commissions, i wont be annoyed if we see kirk being promoted to Commander
in this movie as he’s promoted rapidly and is Captain in 2264!! My only problem with Kirk in this movie is his lack of rank, why is he a cadet??

Spock has been under Pikes wing for years which is why he’s Pike’s number 1 (the real number one is now Captain) as well as science officer, this explains his “Jealousy” with Kirk
being put in some kind of authority.

McCoy is all good too, he probably met Kirk and co in the Academy [Medical degrees traditionally take years to pass] and whilst in university/academy he has performed revolutionary
medical proceedures so has gone through the ranks well.

Scotty is all good too, hes the correct age and has had a long career already by this point, so is already well ranked and talented, with much experience on Star-ships frieghters etc.

Uhura and Sulu are both perfect too.

Finally Chekov, who’s a gamble IMO, would have only just joined Starfleet so must be a cadet, but because he is such a genius he gets promoted to Ensign quickly- and is trusted even as a cadet

My theory, is that this is after “The Cage”, Pike is abit older, Spock is now his first officer with Number One already a Captain. The Enterprise is a “Repaired and Refitted” Enterprise
(The repairing and refitting are all done in Iowa) and our TOS crew are there because they are all talented junior officers [Kirk is a liability at this point, which is why he’s not invited] and
just like the cadets in TWOK they are forced to “grow up a little bit faster” when Nero and co invade!!

At the end of this movie, some are promoted [Pike – Fleet Captain, Kirk – Commander, McCoy – Lt Commander, Uhura and Sulu – Lt, Chekov – Ensign] and go off and do their own thing
until they are all reunited under Kirks command.

The Enterprise also fits in perfectly with my theory. It was commissioned in 2245, so would be 17 years old by 2262, quite old. It might be non-canon, but apparently Admiral Archer
was there on its launching and died the next day. This fits in perfectly with Scottys Beagle incident. Pike takes over in the early 2250s and by 2260 the Enterprise 15 years old at
that time, needs a refit and retrofit. Pike then takes the newly upgraded Enterprise to battle Nero, after the Nero incident, the ENT is really damaged so needs another refit n retrofit- ready for
2265.

Spocks Timeship is also a great idea, the film is set after Nemesis, The ENT-E used time travel to get back to the 24th century after First Contact so its possible… also, cant remember what
episode it was but in Season 1 of TOS Spock has the formula to push the ENT into time-warp (accidently) why doesnt he use this formula in a timeship?? Also in VOY, the future of the FED is all
about time with the temporal prime directive, maybe Time-Ships are intergrated into normal Starfleet activities??

Regarding the huge canon debate:

The Romulans, a huge canon problem because of Balance of Terror, arnt too much of a ball ache if you think about it “Logically”. The Romulans we are going to see in this movie are from the 24th century,
No-one has seen a 23rd century Romulan, thats what all the spiele is about on Balance of Terror, and is also the reason why Spock and Kirk have that famous “look” when the Romulans appear on screen, they
have only seen a 24th century Romulan. Its because of the Earth-Romulan war and because of the Nero incident that Romulans are considered to be warlike, cruel, treacherous…
Also, this quote is interesting too: Spock says:”…The treaty, negotiated by subspace radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side would constitute an act of war. The treaty has remained
unbroken since that time… Captain?” [Note that this is a question] Kirk replies: “What you don’t know, and must now be told, is that my command orders on this subject are precise and inviolable. No act,
regardless of its severity, will be considered sufficient provocation to violate the zone. We may defend ourselves, but for the purposes of maintaining intergalactic security, both these outposts – and this
starship – will be considered expendable.” – Ok Kirk may be simply refering to the Neutral Zone treaty, but notice how he evades the question. Ok Spock knows the Romulans entered the Neutral Zone and we dont know
what part he plays in the conflict but we do know that Elder Spock swears Kirk to secrecy over some issues. I think because this is a temporal issue, Kirk etc are all sworn to secrecy over the Romulans… just an
idea, kinda makes sense.

Kirk driving a car is also another “dodgy” area:

(Grinding) “Oops! Gears!”
“Yes. Oh… I believe they had a device known as a… clutch. Clutch, captain. Perhaps one of those pedals on the floor.”
(Kirk shifts the car into gear)
“I kind of like this. I’m going to get one myself.”

– Kirk and Spock, on their first attempt at driving an automobile

“Captain, you are an excellent starship commander. But as a taxi driver, you leave much to be desired.”

– Spock

“Must we?”
“It’s faster than walking.”
“But not as safe…”
“Are you afraid of cars?”
“Not at all. It’s your driving that alarms me.”
“I’ve got the hang of it now.”

– Spock and Kirk, before another try at an automobile

The only explaination is that Kirk isnt that bad at driving, maybe his corvette is different and futuristic?? Maybe because its been a while since Kirk drove a car he forgot about clutches?? Maybe young kirk went
for a joyride in the car and doesnt have a clue to use it, which is why he crashes it into the crater??

BTW the crater, is probably reminiscient from WW3, ok Iowa is flat today, but after a huge war, there are some huge crators?? maybe even some mining for precious fossil fuels in the late 21st century??

Regarding Kirk’s promotions and being a “cadet”:

The chronology of Kirk’s latter days in Starfleet Academy (entry date of 2250), and service aboard the USS Republic and USS Farragut, is somewhat muddled. In “Court Martial”, Kirk discussed meeting Ben Finney at the Academy,
and that they were assigned together aboard the Republic, “some years later”. According to many sources, including the Star Trek Chronology, Ensign Kirk’s tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place while Kirk was still an
Academy cadet. In “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, Gary Mitchell refers to Kirk a lieutenant while serving in the Academy, but it is not clear if this means a midshipman or a commissioned lieutenant.

In “Obsession”, Kirk stated that Captain Garrovick of the Farragut was “my commanding officer from the day I left the Academy”. In “A Private Little War” (taking place in 2268), he mentioned his first planet survey as young
lieutenant on Neural thirteen years prior (in 2255) – leading many to believe that Kirk had graduated and was serving aboard the Farragut at the time.

Stephen E. Whitfield’s 1968 book The Making of Star Trek states that “Kirk rose rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class space ship) while still quite young.” This has never
been stated on screen.

One explanation of Kirk’s problematic promotion history is that he received a brevet rank of ensign while at the Academy, and that his tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place prior to his graduation as an advanced training
cruise. Kirk would then have returned to the Academy, received a promotion to Lieuenant (or possibily Lieutenant Junior Grade), and served as a student instructor thereby fitting with Mitchell’s statement that he remembered
“Lieutenant Kirk at the Academy”. It then would fit that Kirk would be commissioned from the Academy as a full Lieutenant in 2254 to serve under Captain Garrovick “from the day he left the Academy”. However, dialog from episodes
neither supports nor refutes this conclusion.

Kirk’s days as a lieutenant commander and a commander are likewise vague since there has been virtually nothing discussed in canon regarding this stage of Kirk’s career. That Kirk even held these ranks is unknown, with the
possibility existing that Kirk was promoted directly to Captain from the rank of Lieutenant. Non-canon literature has touched on this subject somewhat, with explanations ranging from Lieutenant Commander Kirk serving as a
First Officer up to Commander Kirk serving as the “Officer-in-Charge” of the Enterprise refit project prior to his taking command.
, Kirk hated his father after Tarsus IV.

Just trying to clear up some canon grumbles and it all fits in nicely with the movie and my theory.

From All the Post i have read and from the trailers and such this is my thoughts. Im a Trek fan for over 30 years. Im a Trek Purest and love all things Trek. From Tos through Enterprise and all 10 Movies. This New Movie lokks to be great and I say that BEcause of 1 inportant Facter. Nimoy. I have No Doubt that Nimoy would not be doing this movie if it was a bad script or if to much was and had been changed. Remember. Nimoy was in the Original Pilot The Cage and he was there from the very Start With Capt Pike Played By Jeffery Hunter. He would not have put his seal of approvel on this movie if it was not simply fantastic with a fantastic Group of Actors. There may be some small changes and there may be some so called cannon issues but with this being a Time Travel and Adventure Story things can change with that. Also. It was Said that All things will be revealed in the Movie. So I Along with Nimoy and even James Cawley and the rest of the orignal Cast Will Support this Movie and Will not bash it. Now After I have seen the Movie then Ill Listn to others bad opions and ill give my own.This Movie is Bringing Star Trek Back to life and Getting Trek out of the Nexus so to speak.

#42 I am a teenager and I am most concerned by the character development in this film, not the action and other aspects which are apparently suposed to be for my age group. On a side note, I did enjoy Quantum of Solace and the next weekend I rented Dr. No with Sean Connery. I actually liked Dr. No better than QoS.
:-)

I’m not convinced that the Enterprise is shown as being built in Iowa. The first teaser trailer seemed to give indications that there was a city in the background, probably San Francisco. We’re only seeing a trailer here, so I think it would be folly to assume that just because we see Kirk riding through farmland that the next cut showing the ship must also be in farm country. It could be that we are seeing a glimpse of his “road trip” across America on his way to Starfleet Academy and the trailer simply makes a sudden cut to show his destination (in more ways than one). If the producers of this movie are keeping to the history as fatefully as they claim to be, why would they make this big a mistake?

I do have some concerns just like everyone else: what about Gary Mitchell, Doctor Boyce, Doctor Piper, Kodos the Executioner, Captain April, the launch date of the Enterprise vs. Kirk’s age…? Ultimately, this is out of our hands and I guess we just have to hope for the best. With that in mind, I’m trying to be open to change and also recognize that no matter how much they respect canon, this is a different interpretation of Star Trek, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

GREAT ARTICLE!!!! So about those kids… I have been one of the most skeptical out there and as a teacher I know a lot and hear a lot of what kids are thinking about popular culture. Well I screened the trailer to all of my 8th grade classes (as part of an assignment of course!!!!) and guess what????

The reaction was phenomenal.

Comments included…

“That is Star Trek!?”
“That looks awesome!”
“I wanna see that now…”

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Plus did you know Star Trek is being marketed on XBOX 360 now? They have the trailer in high def for free and backgrounds and gamer pics. SOOO sweet and a big link is large as day on the XBOX main screen you don’t have to search or anything. Gotta say the trailer looks very sweet on my 50 inch plasma with true high-def!!!

I’ll agree that the barcode scanners were probably a poor choice. As far as Memory Alpha, since this is an alternate timeline / reboot, any entries related to this movie should be denoted as being as such. We already have abbreviations like TOS, TAS, TNG. This movie can be referred to as Star Trek Zero (STZ). The name Star Trek Zero comes from Roberto Orci himself in one of his posts, so I figure it should be OK.

I’m jazzed about the new Trek also. My take is, even though there is no way it will be 100% how I would do it (since I’m not being paid by Paramount as the guy in charge), I’m hopeful it will be entertaining and — for the most part — very “original recipe.”

If it doesn’t adhere to its roots, even I will be willing to admit it is not true Star Trek.

I haven’t seen it yet so the jury is out. Like I said, I will remain hopeful.

-Kirk: with big hands (interesting)
-Scotty: ( too comedic? I myself have used comedy to better fit into situations where I felt nervous or new.)
-McCoy: He’s good, nuff said.
-Quinto: Early into his half Human/half Vulcan turmoil. Keeps logic and cool unless pushed too far.
-Pine as Kirk: Finally a Kirk who stands to the Kirk I knew was always there. Shatner was good, but was always missing something. Now, Pine will do Kirk unshackled.

In all—Can’t wait to see the movie. the design of the new Enterprise has grown on me. It makes since to have the deflector a little forwarded since it is that area of the ship that is supposed to DEFLECT space debris and such.

#130. Im the Same way. Ill be openminded for the Movie. But I think with Nimoy Himself who was there for the very beginning with Star Trek and with Great Actors like Jeffery Hunter and Susan Oliver and then of corse with the Shat it will be a great and true Trek Movie. I highly doubt he would do and support and give his approvel if it was against and bad trek.

I also liked the free fall fight in Razor. I’m not sure why it “didn’t work”. You may not have liked it, but it was set up fine and paid off well. It “worked”.

I also echo the annoyance of being disregarded because of the “MTV Generation” label. It’s insulting. Just as insulting as saying the old geezers need to grow a pair again and stop crying about some style choices.

See. Insulting, right?

As a writer and a filmmaker and, geez, just as an educated young man, I find it insulting that the tastes of an entire age group are lumped together and dismissed by the older folks. I’m 25. I grew up on Trek. On all of it. I was old enough to appreciate the final season of TNG in its first run, not to mention DS9 first run and Voyager first run. And I caught reruns of TOS and early TNG every afternoon.

I’m familiar with the 60’s, 80’s and 90’s progression of the ethos of Star Trek. I’m familiar with what Trek meant in the 60’s. I’m aware of history.

I also enjoy the works of Ennio Morricone, Darren Aranofsky, Sergei Leone, JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon, Hitchcock, Roddenberry… shall I go on? The assumption that the younger kids with an objective bone in their body don’t have an opinion that counts simply because of their youth (which somehow means inexperience and ignorance) is ludicrous.

It’s the total lack of objectivity for some of you with this movie that floors me, as a young person. There’s wisdom to objectivity. When did that cease to be the domain of the 40+ group?

I’m glad SOMEONE here commented upon the archetypes essay instead of more “they’re pandering to the kids” slander.

Also, it’s absolutely nuts that people already think that there’s a lack of substance to the film based upon that flash-bang trailer. It didn’t show us ANY of the story in context. Heck, we didn’t even see Nimoy ONCE, so how can anyone think they know everything about the movie?

#93 – “These …people have been putting in untold hours of work and I’m sure they aren’t getting a lot of sleep.” Yeah, well, did it ever occur to you that there are countless other people who have been creating Trek for the past 40 years who were undergoing the same thing? And now Abrams is just overwriting everything THEY’VE done? Where does THAT fit in your rant?

“Music video mentality”. Couldn’t have put it better myself. I demand sophistication, intelligence, and vision from my Star Trek. I do not share the big-loud-sound-bite sensibility of the iPod generation. Trek was a show about ideas as well as characters, and that’s what I want retained.

And now for the big shock: I’m 25. Believe it or not, some young fans do want their minds challenged, instead of just their eyes. I can’t help but notice that most of the people defending this movie are as young as me and perfectly satisfied because the movie’s pace and style caters right to them. “Ooh, it looks good, so it’ll be good Trek!” Please. People who say that have no idea what Trek really is.

I’m thrilled that Trek is being transmuted into a universe that really feels like outer space. I’m happy that the actors have taken their roles seriously and that the writers at least respect the difference between pandering and relevance. I enjoy the mythological, character-focused approach that the movie puts forward.

Bring on the special effects, as long as they serve a purpose. Bring on the canon changes; it makes it easier to write the story. Bring on the action; maybe it will give Trek a better balance between idea and action (it’s always tended to fall on the stuffy side). This is why you use action and SFX, not just for its own sake. Every respectable artist will tell you that. Change that, and it’s just dollar signs.

But the instant I hear about my beloved Trek being dumbed down with the sex jokes and gratuitous explosions that marked “Transformers”, I get reluctant. So sue me if I wanted some maturity and storytelling from the new movie.

You’re dealing with Trek fans here. They’re passionate, and they’re exacting. Deal with it. This ain’t “Grey’s Anatomy”. We’ll see just how well Abrams’ not-so-veiled dumping of the existing fanbase works out for him. I’m not sure where he gets off abandoning the fans when it wasn’t the fans that killed Trek, it was creative exhaustion and studio idiocy. Fix that and you fix Trek. This movie needs to appeal to fans AND non-fans. There are some fans who’d rather Trek stay dead than get turned into a brainless video game just to make a few bucks.

Rebooting Trek for a new generation of fans WITHOUT ever having been a fan yourself – that just reeks of disrespect and a studio’s desperation for more revenue. Just because you can reboot it, doesn’t mean you should. Anyone who praises Abrams just for doing what he’s doing – without regard to whether it’s actually Trek or not – well, you’re just wrong. And disrespectful to the franchise.

So we’ll see. It’s too early to judge from the trailer, but then again, my fears weren’t based on the trailer. They were based on the fact that the movie was being written by Orci and Kurtzman, two writers with a reputation for handling geek and teen material far better than they do any weighty or inspirational stuff. The fact that Nimoy consented to get involved does give me hope, and I will definitely be in the theater to watch it.

I want to go out on a limb here, and I am really not trying to pick a fight or bag on anyone. I just want to point out though that a lot of us enjoy speculating on the film based on the miniscule evidence we have. I for one don’t think I should be forming final opinions when I haven’t seen the finished product, but trying to figure out what’s going on is a lot of the fun for me. Maybe it’s a throw back to the old days of mimeographed fanzines, but I remember doing the same thing for TMP, Next Gen, heck, all the way up to Enterprise really. Hanging on every spilled detail and trying to extrapolate from there what it meant. It then is a real kick with my Trek buddies to figure out which of us were right and which were wrong. I remember when DS9 was announced, all we knew was sapce station, some TNG crew members, and wormhole. Our speculation went like this:

Geordie: Wesley?
Wesley: Yes Geordie?
Geordie: Anything come out of the wormhole today?
Wesley: No Geordie.
Pause.
Geordie: Wesley, can you make me a sandwich?

See? it’s fun! Sure, we were wrong about the entire thing, but we had a blast. Here’s a situation where we know the rules are changing, and whether I agree with the changes or not I am enjoying the speculation on how they will change.

I agree we shouldn’t be passing full judgement, negative OR positive until the final product is out, but we shouldn’t be begrudging each other the specualtion either.

That is all. Thank you for your indulgence. You may now throw things at me.

My theory has always been that
Kirk went to the Academy where he met Finney, Ruth and Finnegan,
served under Garrovick on the Republic,
logged the mistake by Finney,
followed Garrovick to the Farragut,
went to Neural as a LT,
survived the attack at Tycho,
taught at the Academy while awaiting reassignment after the the Inquiry into the attack at Tycho,
and, while at the academy the second time, met Gary Mitchell and the blond lab technician.

For thoughtful responses to the marketing so far, these are pretty thin essays. And they all seem to have the same ‘cautiously optimistic’ tone, as though they lack the courage to be one or the other.

Real courage, hard work and toughness comes from working on a project/film for two years +, with all of the countless decisions, practical realities and haters to be dealt with.

The principals seem to all have a strong sense of responsibility, including the studio execs who [John Lesher] made the decision to pour more money into post and marketing. The world tour alone is something you just don’t see anymore. For those who are not in the entertainment business, Paramount went through a regime change while the movie was being made. John Lesher was an agent at Endeavor, the same place that spawned ‘Ari’ from ENTOURAGE. He represented cutting edge directors, and often groomed them from around the world. Say what you want, but if it weren’t for his instincts, we might be watching Star Trek this week, but it would be far less of a global media event, there would be fewer if any toys, and we certainly wouldn’t have the same quantity/quality of special effects.

Moreover, again on the business side, Star Trek never would have happened if it hadn’t been for the uncanny business instincts of Lucile Ball, who founded Desilu and ruled it with an iron fist. It’s kind of fascinating that among all of the obsessive fans, nobody ever mentions her contributions. She’s the one who had the muscle to keep the show on the air. If it wasn’t for Lucy, Paramount wouldn’t have had MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or STAR TREK to keep their studio in the black.

To be clear. I’m 26 and I feel much the same way as the rest of you who have posted about being worried about the substance, characters, and proper spirit of Trek.

My editorial was simply to point out that :
1. This first trailer was clearly targeted at a demographic that isn’t those of us who post here at TrekMovie.
Post number 125 from Aaron R. gave us some annecdotal evidence that supports this.

2. Contemporary Trek needs to bridge the gap between the “social things” (to coin a phrase from sociolgist Charles Lemert) that existed to create Trek in the 1960s and the social things of today.

You know, after reading this article, I had to ask myself: Why isn’t Gary Mitchell in this movie? Gary Mitchell and James T. Kirk are practically best friends in the Academy, so I have to ask, what happened to Mitchell? And in case the answer is he doesn’t exist, go and watch Where No Man Has Gone Before, the first official Trek episode, then tell me he doesn’t exist seeing as every trek fan has seen that episode (well the TOS ones at least). So again, where is Gary Mitchell???

Thank you for the reply. I am teaching a class called “Sociology Through Star Trek” starting this January at the College of Lake County. Here is a link to the website for sociology, and also a WGN news feature about “That 70s Class” from February of this year. Thank you!

146- Great shot, I had forgotten about that. Take a look at the Excelsior’s bridge in ST:III as well (not in ST:VI). Similar details.

149- Whole new timeline. I would imaging Mitchell (if he exists at all, timeline changes may have erased him) would be a contemporary with Spock since Kirk seemingly (and this is all speculation) joins the academy some 7 years later.

Do you think Star Trek is intended to be something different for every individual? Is there any way to take a 60’s tv show (as beloved as it is) and offer that to a 21st century audience – completely as it is – and have it go over? I don’t think so…
Things that stay the same become obsolete. TOS was a wonderful, imaginative show for its time, but that time is gone. TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all had some good things going for them, but the continuing decline of interest in Star Trek is why it is time to “re-whatever” the franchise. How some people don’t get that is beyond me, when it seems such a simple and obvious course of action. When my teenage son sees an old episode of TOS, his reaction is, “This is so goofy.” When he sees episodes of TNG, etc., then his reaction is, “This is boring.” Do you think that his attitude is singular, or is it possible there is an entire group of people out there who know very little about Star Trek, and they don’t really care for what they do know about it? So, is Paramount and JJ Abrams being so completely unreasonable as to want to try to pique the interest of a whole new crowd, or should they have just taken WNMHGB and put that up on the big screen? I had Star Trek from the time I was 9, so I’ve had many years of Trek in my life, whereas my teenage son hasn’t had much at all. I have a lot more attachment to Star Trek, whereas he has pretty much none. I’m pretty sure if a new Trek movie looked like, sounded like, smelled like TOS, or any other previous Trek, he wouldn’t be interested one bit, and my own interest would be stifled. Thus, I don’t think Paramount and JJ could simply rehash what Trek has done before — what would be the point? There has to be a new, modernized Trek for the younger audience that will inherit Trek. If they don’t take to it (regardless whether I, or Trek-fans from my generation approve of it), Trek is going to vanish into the realm of Dragnet, the Munsters, Lost In Space, Bonanza…. shall I go on?
For those who are completely down on this film, I offer the following analogy: I absolutely despise rap, but this is what my teenage kids are into. I cannot tell them how I don’t think rap is music, or that it’s any good, or has any redeeming qualities, but my opinion means nothing to them. They love it. I, on the other hand, will always feel that the music I grew up with — the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Purple, Floyd, etc. — is still the greatest music ever made. So, I don’t listen to rap, I listen to what I like. If you don’t think this new Trek is gonna be any good, don’t “listen” to it, just “listen” to what you do like. There is virtually no point in arguing about it, cos one man’s liver is another man’s pudding. No minds are going to be changed by arguing. Some minds might be changed when the movie is actually in the theaters, and we get to actually see it, first-hand, as opposed to all the speculating going on….. otherwise, keep in mind that our experience and perspective on Star Trek is a subjective thing…

Quote from Charles Trotter
“I am also an archivist and administrator at Memory Alpha, an encyclopedia for canon Trek. Needless to say, I am wondering how this movie will affect the current state information at Memory Alpha since, judging by the trailer, the new movie will be toying with established canon quite a bit”

Please don’t let this movie erase or alter forty years of KNOW N Trek history. More and more this seems like a reboot so keep “classic Trek” history in tact and maybe just list this as “new Trek” snd let it spin in space and build on itself independent of what came before. I could not stand to see the history we all know and which still exists on DVDs be changed or forced to mesh with this new version of events as they seem to be presented in this movie.

I doubt JJ and company ever read Joseph Campbell’s A Hero with a Thousand Faces. If you watch JJ’s Mission Impossible or Cloverfield you will find the dialogue is second rate at best and there is no sense that any of his films address big epic questions. Campbell’s writings were an infleunce on George Lucas and JJ loves Star Wars and probably dreams of becoming George Lucas so that’s why this artice quotes the famous mythology professor Campbell. Based on what I have seen from JJ, I would put him in the same catagory as other wannabe great directors that fail to deliver, ie. Bryan Singer not George Lucas. Star Trek is myth, but it is also defined by the past 40 years. Redesigning and reimagining everything from is only going to screw up the continuity of what everyone knows and expects. Maybe if JJ Abrams actually read Joseph Campbell’s A Hero with a Thousand Faces he would discover that the hero above all us needs to be humble. If JJ approached the movie with a more humble attitude and not change everything around so much he might have been able to make a movie closer to what we know as the original Star Trek.

Where No Man Has Gone Before wasn’t the first proper Star Trek episode: it was the second pilot and it shows.

There’s been plenty of retconning done the last few decades, but WNMHGB is an action-packed, slightly 50s-ish sci-fi adventure and not much like the 1960s iconic show we know and love.

There are loads of inconsistencies with subsequent episodes in it (remember it was broadcast part way through the first season) to the extent that you have to treat it as a typical pilot where some bits are kept and others dumped. Remember how Riker and Troi could talk telepathically in Encounter at Farpoint and Patrick Stewart was playing Picard with a (bad) mid-atlantic accent?

Realistically, there’s no reason to say the events of the story couldn’t have happened, but equally, there’s so much that’s apocryphal in it that maybe WNMHGB should be considered a lesser part of Trek continuity.

156
Hey it’s a lot more fun to twist our imaginations into Celtic knots trying to make it all fit together….

Besides i think that most chronologies (and most fans) take the position that WNMHGB happens before all the other TOS episodes, despite the original airing schedule.

And I disagree with your assessment that it is not much like the series that followed. At the heart of the WNMHGB story are the themes of power and the abuse of power, and the nature of divinity. Not only would theses be themes we would see again in “Space Seed,” “Patterns of Force,” “Who Mourns for Adonis?” et. al, but couching the lessons in action and adventure was the essence of TOS.

Finally, WNMHGB has to count as a true TOS episode because Kirk fights the antagonist in the 3rd Act, which results in his tunic being torn :-)

157/158 Oh don’t get me wrong: I don’t give a rat’s ass about inconsistencies in WNMHGB. I have a life! It’s a stonkingly great piece of TV and noticeably more expansive than most Trek episodes. But in terms of look and feel, it’s really a very different kind of Star Trek. The uniforms and sets are very different, many crewmembers are different, the sets are different, Spock’s makeup is wildly different: all stuff that people are complaining about where the new film is concerned.

I completely get that WNMHGB is set about a year before The Corbomite Maneuver, but that’s precisely the retroactive continuity I’m talking about: no one was thinking about that at the time. It was merely another episode of Desilu’s peculiar new sci-fi show!

Dom, since I don’t have a life ;) let me continue to disagree. It does look different, but even the stardate shows us it came first (realizing of course that stardates on TOS are as reliable as the dollar right now…). Yes, there are crew member differences (Sulu in astrophysics??) but from the military perspective, it makes some sense.

Hi. No worries. I love being able to discuss Trek with someone and come up with fun ideas rather than expect the writers to explain everything.

I know where all these discussions about where to locate episodes come from. But they’re a result of fans making up a continuity after the show had finished.

WNMHGB is a much bigger episode on a broader scale than regular episode budgets would allow. If you want to choose any Trek that could easily be watched in a 1960s cinema as a movie, it’s WNMHGB beyond all the others. It has great FX, a great, classic Trek story, good action scenes, a high body count of major characters and a sympathetic villain.

However, Spock’s character is still a bit over the place and Kirk is ‘James R.’ Kirk is described as a bookworm at the academy, although down the years, that’s increasingly been thrown into doubt – most portrayals of young Kirk, be they Shatner’s, Diane Carey’s or Orci/Kurtzmans have shown a wilder character more prone to low level criminality.

What I basically have been talking about is that all pilot episodes throw everything and its brother into the melting pot and some ideas will never be built upon. Gary Mitchell and Elisabeth Dehner are never again referenced. Mark Piper is forgotten. Indeed, Christopher Pike and his crew are more commonly thought of than Kirk’s pilot crew.

Once the pilot’s done and dusted, some ideas remain and some fall away. I love WNMHGB. It’s one of my favourite episodes (although I wish Bones could be in it!) But sometimes you just have to accept that some of the things stated as fact in a pilot, some of the designs and some of the characters will simply be let drift.

These things don’t really need explaining. So if Gary Mitchell isn’t mentioned in the new Trek film, really he’s a character from the pilot and he doesn’t have to be as relevant as characters in the main run of the show!